proving evolution as just a "theory"

[omega2xx]

why thank you. I'll accept your implicit inability to address the evidence at face value.

lol!

Your welcome. I accept you implicit inability to understand what constitutes verifiable evidence.

lol

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

Your welcome. I accept you implicit inability to understand what constitutes verifiable evidence.

lol

Irony just broke the universe.

 

[omega2xx]

Irony just broke the universe.

Admission that you don't understand verifiable evidence just shattered the universe that God created and you can't explain how it originated.

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

Admission that you don't understand verifiable evidence just shattered the universe that God created and you can't explain how it originated.

Do you mind verifying that please? Let's see how you go. Show me where I don't understand verifiable evidence and we'll go from there.

 

[Jimmy D]

It is transparently dishonest to say you have evidence that supports natural selection, but won't produce it.

I look forward to you saying you have produced it.

A sorry attempt at obfuscation.

No mention of your dishonest quote mining then? No apology, no admission you were mistaken? Creationism in a nutshell, intellectually and morally bankrupt.

I don't believe I offered evidence for natural selection by the way, you haven't demonstrated that you understand the ERV evidence presented yet.

 

[Jimmy D]

Not bothered by the FACT you have not proved what I say is false. Nice

Not bothered by the FACT that you are not willing to cut and paste what you consider evidence to shut me up forever. Nice

You are acting exactly in the same way you are accusing me of acting. nice

Ok, done that, haven't you got anything to say about it?

 

[Jimmy D]

I will accept words. Anyone who thinks pictures does not understand "verifiable evidence."

Well read this and tell me why it isn't evidence for common ancestry, if you were to follow the link you will find the verifiable data that was used to reach the conclusion....

Endogenous retrovirus, an inherited retrovirus encoded in an organism's genome.

Creationists keep arguing that finding ERV's at the same place in the genomes of different species is not evidence for common ancestry since retroviruses would insert into the same places. What they forget is that the theory of evolution also predicts which ERV's will be found at different places in each genome, something their claims can not do.

Here are the two positions under question:

1. Common ancestry.

2. Two independent insertions at the same base.

As it happens, there are ERV's that we can use to test these hypotheses. In chimps and gorillas we find multiple insertions from the PtERV family of retroviruses. Interestingly, insertions from that retrovirus are NOT found in humans and orangutans. Our two different positions make two different testable hypotheses in this situation.

1. Common ancestry. Since these insertions are not found in the human or orangutan genome, then these insertions must have happened after the chimp lineage split off from the human lineage. If they occurred before this point then they would be found in the human genome. If they occurred at the root of the ape tree, then they would also be found in the orangutan genome. Since they are only found in the chimp and gorilla genomes, this means that they had to occur independently in each species. Therefore, PtERV insertions in the chimp and gorilla genomes should NOT be found at the same location in the chimp and gorilla genomes.

2. Two independent insertions at the same base. If the specificity of retroviral insertion causes ERV's to occur at the same position 99.9% of the time (the rate needed to produce the shared ERV's between the human and chimp genomes), then we should find PtERV insertions at the same location in both the chimp and gorilla genomes.

As you can see, the two positions make the exact opposite prediction. Here is the data:

"Within the limits of this BAC-based end-sequencing mapping approach, 24 sites mapped to similar regions of the human reference genome (approximately 160 kb) and could not be definitively resolved as orthologous or non-orthologous (Table S3). We classified these as “ambiguous” overlap loci (Figure 3). If all 24 locations corresponded to insertions that were orthologous for each pair, this would correspond to a maximum of 12 orthologous loci. The number of non-orthologous loci was calculated as 275/287 (275 + 12) or 95.8%. This is almost certainly a lower-bound estimate owing to the limitation of our BAC-based mapping approach to refine the precise locations of the insertions."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1054887/

The limits of the BAC-based method allow you to determine if two insertions are within about 100k to 200k base pairs of each other. Of the 287 PtERV insertions, 95.8% were not even within hundreds of thousands of base pairs of each other. Already, the independent insertion hypothesis is entirely busted. The authors of the paper then looked at existing genome sequencing to determine if the ones that were close to each other were actually at the same base. They couldn't find a single unambiguous orthologous PtERV shared by chimps and gorillas.

The common ancestor hypothesis is completely supported. The independent insertion hypothesis is thoroughly falsified.

(Thanks Loudmouth!)

....................................................

If you don't understand what is being discussed no problem, but please don't lie again about no evidence being presented.

 

[AV1611VET]

Or am I on the wrong wavelength?

You're on the wrong wavelength.

Here are the standards I use when facing things that are/are not in the Bible:

1. Bible says X, science says X = go with X
2. Bible says X, science says Y = go with X
3. Bible says Ø, science says Y = go with Y
4. Bible says Ø, science says Ø = speculate

Prime Directive: Under no circumstances is the Bible to be contradicted.

Using those standards, Captain James Cook would get a green light; while evolution would not.

 

[Jimmy D]

You're on the wrong wavelength.

Here are the standards I use when facing things that are/are not in the Bible:

1. Bible says X, science says X = go with X
2. Bible says X, science says Y = go with X
3. Bible says Ø, science says Y = go with Y
4. Bible says Ø, science says Ø = speculate

Prime Directive: Under no circumstances is the Bible to be contradicted.

Using those standards, Captain James Cook would get a green light; while evolution would not.

What about my Mum's winter flu inocculation? Would she be better off seeing the vicar?

 

[AV1611VET]

What about my Mum's winter flu inocculation? Would she be better off seeing the vicar?

What does the Bible say?

Luke 5:31 And Jesus answering said unto them, They that are whole need not a physician; but they that are sick.

Your ridicule backfired.

Par for the course.

 

[USincognito]

So, in your view, dictionaries do not provide 'standard' definitions but 'common definition(s).

That's not my view. That's simply a fact. Dictionaries are actually snapshots of common usage of words at the time they are published. Verbiage used in specific fields does not always reflect common usage.

So what do you do? Provide me with a Merriam-Webster dictionary definition of 'theory'.

Seems like a whiff of hypocrisy here.

I was noting that the dictionary definition posted earlier was a general definition of theory while the very first definition on Merriam-Webster was the scientific definition. Of course the point I was trying to make is that the scientific definition of theory is not the same as "theory" on common parlance.

And I notice the rest of my post went unaddressed. Why is that?

 

[Bungle_Bear]

What does the Bible say?

Luke 5:31 And Jesus answering said unto them, They that are whole need not a physician; but they that are sick.

Your ridicule backfired.

Par for the course.

Jimmy's mum isn't sick, so she doesn't need a physician. However, she needs a physician to administer the shot so she doesn't get sick. I don't see what Luke has to say about that.

Looks like your bible isn't quite as comprehensive as you think.

 

[Jimmy D]

Jimmy's mum isn't sick, so she doesn't need a physician. However, she needs a physician to administer the shot so she doesn't get sick. I don't see what Luke has to say about that.

Looks like your bible isn't quite as comprehensive as you think.

Yep, it's true.

 

[AV1611VET]

Jimmy's mum isn't sick, so she doesn't need a physician.

Good to hear.

However, she needs a physician to administer the shot so she doesn't get sick.

Preventive medicine, I take it? Keeps the physicians employed, doesn't it?

I don't see what Luke has to say about that.

Nothing. Therefore, she would be ... using Jimmy's way of thinking ... seeing the vicar.

Better yet, she should see an Independent Fundamental Baptist pastor.

Looks like your bible isn't quite as comprehensive as you think.

Perhaps you could clarify that statement?

 

[AV1611VET]

Yep, it's true.

Um ... no.

Here they are again:

1. Bible says X, science says X = go with X
2. Bible says X, science says Y = go with X
3. Bible says Ø, science says Y = go with Y
4. Bible says Ø, science says Ø = speculate

If your mother is truly sick, then Luke 5:31 applies (see #1 above).

If your mother isn't sick, but is convinced she needs a shot anyway, then #3 applies and she needs to get a shot.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Perhaps you could clarify that statement?

Your claim was that the bible had something to say about Jimmy's mum's situation. The passage you quoted did not address the situation.

 

[AV1611VET]

Your claim was that the bible had something to say about Jimmy's mum's situation. The passage you quoted did not address the situation.

Don't worry. I don't expect you to understand.

 

[Jimmy D]

Um ... no.

Here they are again:

1. Bible says X, science says X = go with X
2. Bible says X, science says Y = go with X
3. Bible says Ø, science says Y = go with Y
4. Bible says Ø, science says Ø = speculate

If your mother is truly sick, then Luke 5:31 applies (see #1 above).

If your mother isn't sick, but is convinced she needs a shot anyway, then #3 applies and she needs to get a shot.

It's a bit weird that this has turned into a debate about my mum, my bad.
I'm happy to report that she's in good health but the government offers free preventative shots for the elderly every winter.

I believe No.3 would be correct in this situation.

 

[Jimmy D]

It's a bit weird that this has turned into a debate about my mum, my bad.
I'm happy to report that she's in good health but the government offers free preventative shots for the elderly every winter.

I believe No.3 would be correct in this situation.

Which also applies to evolution by the way.

 

[AV1611VET]

It's a bit weird that this has turned into a debate about my mum, my bad.

Nevertheless, I'm glad to hear your mum is doing well.

I'm happy to report that she's in good health but the government offers free preventative shots for the elderly every winter.

Good deal!

I believe No.3 would be correct in this situation.

Yup.